Previous studies, particularly with the latex round-robin sample have identified that systematic errors are frequently

more significant than the random errrors that arise solely from counting statistics. This needs to be more widely

recognised in publications, data analysis procedures and even in guidelines for good practice.

A longer term project to evaluate systematic errors and the uncertainty that derives from them is desirable. This will

need gathering a group of appropriate people and invitations are being prepared.

(d) Give appropriate ideas on these topics to the other groups.

Several of the ideas that have been discussed relate closely to work in other groups. New data formats should facilitate better description of uncertainty, the systematic recording of appropraite sample metadata and their uncertainties and the the reduction and analysis.

The web portal should clearly identify good practices and provide appropriate training and educational material.

Acknowledgements

(This applies to all sections of the report).

The results described arise from four full days of intensive work in small groups during the meeting in Uppsala and from preparatory work. We acknowledge the generous support of the agencies employing the particpants that have made available time and travel resources to permit the co-operative work. We are also grateful to people who have given freely of their own time to support the SAS community. Just the direct participation amounts to about two-person months of effort. These 'sponsors' are APS (Argonne National Laboratory), NCNR (National Institute of Standards and Technology), ISIS (STFC), the Diamond Light Source, Institut Laue Langevin, University of Auckland, Kyoto University, University of Tokyo and Uppsala University. We are also grateful for further participation from ANSTO, APS and ESRF in webinars and contributions to discussion on the wiki.